Talk: Gawain Robards

My edit

Hello! I'm honestly a bit confused about your objection to the updates I made. Firstly because you said that it was "too much speculation", while I only made some teeny tiny extrapolations based on canon lore from the books, and secondly because those particular extrapolations is a reoccurring trend and very much seems to BE "the style".

Can you explain a bit more? I'm sure we can agree on some sort of middle ground, but I know for a fact that removing the entire thing is a bit silly when everything's sourced and can be accounted for canonically. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothing is known about his history, education, family; he could be of any descent, had any kind of upbringing, and he is only mentioned once in the sixth book and a few times in Harry Potter: Wizards Unite game info. This wiki's isn't for endless and colourful speculation about characters and their supposed lifes. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't write anything about his family, all I said was that he was born in a family, which he is, unless you're suggesting he was created in a test tube in a Muggle lab, Stranger Things style? There's nothing I added to this article that can't be found on others where we have about as much information. The fact that I update the article to highlight truisms no one has bothered to point out before doesn't make it "speculative."

Also, will you please stop undoing my update? Follow your own advice and discuss it on the talk page before making removals from article pages, or perhaps that rule only applies to everyone else? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that several banned users on this wiki have insisted on publishing similar kinds of content to articles, which is why this content shall be reverted. It is not factual. Edit warring also isn't encouraged and this wiki's b-cat Seth Cooper shall be informed if this content is added back again, considering no one else has agreed with it. Thank you. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a day to encourage you both to please focus on the talk-page instead of engaging in edit-warring.

I think the part about having to gain certain grades and passing character and stringent tests to be an Auror was okay. It should say that he "likely" achieved them. We've put it on other pages. However, it does look very over-detailed for a minor character we don't know enough about. We don't know he was a "scion" because we don't know if the Robards family was a notable one. It should be focused on what the book and game do say about him, instead of trying to fill in the gaps with probabilities. - Kates39 (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The article's current format only covers what the book and video game say about him. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The word "scion" is used broadly here. We could change it to "descended from", but what makes a wizarding family notable is subjective. In the article, it was used instead of "was born into", but if you think it can be a semantical issue and people can misunderstand it, then sure, we can change that Kates39. I'm not clear on what you meant it should say that he "likely" achieved, though? Completing the qualifying tests for the Auror training programme, or the training programme itself? Because both are mandatory for anyone wanting to be an Auror prior to the temporary special arrangements post-Battle of Hogwarts 1998.

What probabilities are you referring to, specifically? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't know if Robards was born to a wizarding family. He could be a Muggle-born. A scion means the "descendant of a notable family" but how are the Robards notable? We don't use terms like "scion" or "notable" that broadly. No details about the family have been given, so fact that they are a family doesn't count per se. Saying he was "descended from" doesn't work, because who or what was he descended from?

Robards would have to complete the Auror training needed, so I think we could drop "likely" for that part. However, I think it should only say he "very likely" attended Hogwarts because he could have studied abroad and gained the equivalent of O.W.L and N.E.W.T grades needed. However, I do think details like that are okay because we know what job he had and what training was needed to have it. It's on other pages, so that doesn't need to be undone.

By probabilities, I just meant that the wiki doesn't focus on trying to detail what could have or probably did happen. Unless the source says so, we don't need to. We don't know what kind of family he was born into, where he was born, what school he went to, what grades he achieved, how gifted he was, if he took a "backseat" during the revolutionizing of the Auror department, what he "spearheaded". He's such a minor character, and we just don't need to detail it in big paragraphs like that. - Kates39 (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Saying he was born into a family of unknown magical pedigree/descent doesn't mean he was pure- or half-bood, it means that we don't know if he is pure-blood, half-blood or Muggle-born. Remember, when a Muggle-born witch or wizard is born, it means a witch or wizard can be found somewhere further up in their family tree, so there will be magical descent in either case, the wording is meant to leave the extent of magical ancestry ambiguous. As for what he descended from? The Robards family, obviously, whoever that is. But you're right, drop scion. How about "stemmed from a family of unknown magical descent"?

I think I added a "presumably" in there somewhere? According to Lupin in book 7, not many, not most, but "almost all" witches and wizards born in the UK attends Hogwarts, so it's vastly more likely that he did than didn't, especially since academic results in a Hogwarts-given exam is necessary to qualify to become an Auror. So all in all, saying that "he was trained in the magical arts, most likely, as was the case with most of his fellow wizards, at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry" is pretty fair. That's all I tried to express, anyway.

Okay, so we can remove the bit about the grades he got and him spearheading rounding up Death Eaters after the Battle of Hogwarts, but the Aurors being decommissioned and stripped of their wands after the takeover still merits a brief mention, in my opinion, given the significant impact it had on British Aurors in general, whether they're playing a major or a minor part in Harry's version of the events. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that sounds fine. It just needs to be kept very brief and to the point. I think saying he was born into a family of unknown wizarding descent sounds okay. I will add pieces of it back into the article before the protection will be lifted, which I have tided up a bit. I did not put the O.W.L. grades in because the source was for Hit Wizards, which he was not. - Kates39 (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

That's embarrassing, my mistake. So do you think we should re-add the thing about the N.E.W.T.s and add a reference to McGonagall's conversation about his prospects for work as an Auror and what the marks needed to qualify for it is, and have that added to the "presumably/likely Hogwarts" bit, or do you reckon we should write something to the effect of... "most likely Hogwarts, and achieved an impressive academic record" ? - WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not honest or accurate to say Robards came from a wizarding family - nothing is known about his heritage and he could have been of any blood status. He could have been educated technically anywhere, even at home. When nothing is known about a subject, it is most accurate to not write anything at all. This wiki can't become a haven for gross speculations and assumptions based on user preferences.

On a more serious note, I believe the content that was added to this article seems very similar to that of a globally banned user called Tfoc; Ursuul has asked Seth Cooper to look into this issue on his talk page as he is the main blocking officer for this issue following some complaints, and Seth has been given to make judgement on this issue. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not happy to see that the second the page was unprotected, the undoing started again. I was working towards a middle ground based on what similar pages have put. If you see Scrimegeour's page for example, it states that it was "highly likely" that he attended Hogwarts. Then it says he probably took the neccessary tests needed to join the Auror Office. In the future, please use the talk-page if you do not think the details should be on the page or if you'd like to change it.

I will leave the sock-puppet situation up to Seth, and I will ask him to look over the Gawain Roberts situation. - Kates39 (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding his education, Robards could have been educated technically anywhere in the wizarding world, even homeschooled. We can't also accurately say his family background was wizarding because it may or may not have been. Nothing is also known about what he did in the Second Wizarding War or what happened to him, or even the connections he had to other known Aurors; it simply isn't stated in the material. If the material doesn't say it, it can't accurately be said, only assumed. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Kates39: I think we can save ourselves the trouble of asking someone to talk to RedWizard98 about his attitude to newcomers on the wiki, because if I ever make an edit on a wiki again, it sure as fuck won't be this one. If I wanted to be spat in the face for the crime of existing, figuratively or otherwise, I'd stayed in high school.

RedWizard89: Dude, you know that meat machine you have between your ears? Why don't you try and use it? The edit I made that you have gotten it in your head "seems very similar" to another one was copy-and-pasted from an existing page on this wiki with the names swapped, so no shit it looks similar to other edits on the wiki. For your own sake, as well as other prospective members that joins in the future, I am religiously hoping that you will get your head out of your ass and at least try getting the facts straight before flinging accusations around, you asshole. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Swearing at users is not acceptable on Fandom. This response will be reported. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Robards round 2

@WeasleyIsOurKing89, please consider this a warning to be mindful of your language when speaking with other users. Future intimidating or aggressive behavior may lead to a local and/or global block. Kimberton (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Kimberton

With regards this edit, revisited, there was absolutely no consensus from other editors, aside from purely one, to publish this revision on the article, interestingly with zero discussion first or approval from the wider community, especially after such a contentious topic. It is important to respect the nature of discussions and not attempt to force a certain view upon the wiki to prove a point, especially after the nature and tone of this discussion. Not to mention, this edit has been agreed by several users to contain purely speculative content which was clearly not addressed or modified, such as alleging his upbringing (could have come from a Muggle family) and education (could have been home educated). RedWizard98 (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If it is decided that this revision is indeed somehow desired (with a majority opinion, not just a singular one), it can be published, but for now it can stay like and I will be informing Seth Cooper, this wiki's trusted b-cat to intervene into this discussion, especially since he told he presumed it to be over. RedWizard98 (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Kates39's two most recent messages on this talk page look to me like the content moderator approval that WIOK89 was referring to. Hopefully he and Kate can clear this up. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  11:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

With regards to this edit, it was still completely speculative to state that he is from a wizarding family, as there is just as much as chance of him being coming from a Muggle family (I thought the wiki generally removed speculation like this with regards to family and blood status), and his education also isn't proven, could have easily been home-schooled. There is zero canon information about his upbringing and it cannot be accurately claimed otherwise. I also don't think overt speculation should be published purely for the sake of appeasing the views of certain editors and to simply end contention, if it isn't canonically sourced from anywhere. If some edit like this is to published, it should seriously trimmed down to remove these extremely broad speculations that aren't encyclopaedic. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Following my concerns, I have also asked site admin Harry granger to assess the issue. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

And also in the midst of adding speculation to the article, incorrect punctuation has also been added. It can't be confirmed he went to Hogwarts, only assumed. I can't think of any other mainstream wiki that allows speculation like this to be accepted into articles, because they generally don't. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I had hoped the situation could have been solved by now, so I'm very perplexed to find a new edit-war over it. I hope it can be solved now so everyone can move on to other things. I think the part about being born into a family of wizarding descent could have been worded better. MrSiriusBlack changed it to "a family of unknown blood status" which I think sounds fine.

I'm struggling to understand why Robards has been singled out, when plenty of other articles like Rufus Scrimgeour have the same sort of thing about possibly attending Hogwarts and the stringent tests he'd need to take to be an Auror. No source every says anything about it, but he's an Auror and we do know what he'd need to have to pursue the career he took. Hundreds of other pages say things like a character "likely attended Hogwarts" even though a source doesn't say anything. These things have never been such a point of contention before, so should they be changed too? The species and nationality fields of infoboxes often get filled in even though a source doesn't say anything of it.

Okay, it's not necessary to put things in unless a source says anything. But it's not unfounded to say it's likely Robards achieved the things necessary to be an Auror. Does anyone else have any thoughts? I have protected the page for now, and it will be protected for longer if an edit-war continues tomorrow. - Kates39 (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

For maybe the fifth or sixth time RedWizard, saying that Robards are of "unknown wizarding descent" does not mean he is from a wizarding family, it means whatever magical ancestry he has, IF ANY, are UNKNOWN. It says EXACTLY what you want it to say, so I have a really hard time understanding why the heck you've got your knickers in such a twist over this. As for his education, you keep saying that "he could have been home-schooled for all we know", but what is your bais for that, exactly? We know that in order to become an Auror in the first place, you need a specific set of N.E.W.T. results. At the time of writing, there is only one place given in canon where N.E.W.T.s are even ministered, and that is at Hogwarts. Top it off with Lupin's remark about how just about every wizard in Britain has attended the school, and Robards attendance is pretty much a given. Where does this notion of "speculation" even come form?

PS: Once more, I would like to apologize for the way I talked to you and behaved earlier in the discussion. Just btw. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

What concerns me about the nature of these edits is that they largely assume things that aren't proven to be true, just because they might be common patterns does not make them accurate, and unless a point was made, the speculations would remain. I fear basically more speculation will be added to articles without good debate. The edit was published without prior re-wording of any kind nor trimming down as would be desired, so I shall continue to raise issues like this, which therefore contained inaccuracies - to say he comes from a wizarding family explicitly rules out any possibility of Muggle background, which is possible here. Like I've said before, I've also notified an admin (Harry granger) to properly assess several concerns I still have about this. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

It didn't say he came from a wizarding family, it said he came from a family of unknown wizarding descent. It is known that even Muggle-borns are descended from wizards, however far back in their line the magical blood may have been. Though I still prefer the wording "family of unknown blood status", as it avoids that confusion entirely.

Red, you seem to have completely ignored or missed what Kate said about other articles having this exact same information or minor variations thereof, without any contention arising on those pages. Why single out Robards's page? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  17:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

In response, it was agreed that it would be word it as a family of unknown status, which I have indeed seen, but it did not say that when published. I actually think writing this kind of content on any article, speculating about a wizard's upbringing and education is a misleading presentation of canon sources - readers will read this information and believe the books explicitly confirm these things, which is not the case. For example, Delphi was an incredibly accomplished witch with no Hogwarts education, she was home-schooled. For all we know, home-schooling for wizards in UK/Ireland, has been allowed, and it is unknown how these students can gain O.W.L.s and N.E.W.T.s, perhaps the Ministry adminster them for these students, I can't say, so don't interpret this as fact. The only canon sources about this character is one mention in the sixth book and some more mentions in Harry Potter: Wizards Unite. That is all there is; even if he was likely to attend Hogwarts, it actually does need not to be even assumed in his article, it can be left out and only contain what's said about them in the sources.

I think I will start a forum about this, since it does affect other articles. Even Scrimgeour has no information about his upbringing or education, that could too could be trimmed down too. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Trimming down" as would be desired by you, you mean. You are the only one who has a problem with the revision that Kates39 and I worked on establishing together. Furthermore, the articles - and I can't believe I even have to write this - ARE NOT speculating about a wizard's upbringing and education, they're simply alluding to the fact that an upbringing and magical education took place in the witch or wizards' lives. WIKI articles are not like the ones we see at the Harry Potter Lexicon, where it only describes the character's depiction in a given book or books, they are written in an in-universe perspective, as though they were real people. And it's called the biography section, so alluding to the passing of time from birth, to childhood, to adulthood, which not only all wizards have in common, but which all humans have in common, is not speculative. It's a truism. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If you'd like to set up a forum to change it, then you can do so. However, until such a change has been talked about and the community accepted it, then these details should not be taken off pages. It should be kept on Robards article for now. - Kates39 (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to add that while I'm willing to grant you that it is possible that Robards was home-schooled. Lupin mentions in book seven that yes, they are few and far between, but there are home-schooled witches and wizards, so yes, it is possible. Hypothetically speaking. But since there is nowhere in canon that states that you can sit your N.E.W.T.s. anywhere outside of Hogwarts, it is and remains a whatifism, and it's not a valid reason to "trim down" articles. I'm sure it's well-intentioned, but it is counterproductively reductionistic at best. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh my God. What's going on here?

1. This is a wiki about facts.
2. When we don't know things about a person it makes no sense to say it could be. We don't know so we don't write about it.
3. Edit wars are destructible. We all want to give facts to an article. If there is a known fact missing it's good to add it. But speculation is not welcome.
4. Personal attacks are forbidden. Different opinions can be discussed but in polite behaviour. We can agree to disagree but the rules of the wiki must be respected.
   

I hope that calms this discussion.
 Harry granger   Talk   contribs 15:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been rebuked for the personal attack already, I just wanted to apologise for a third or fourth time here so I was sure RedWizard98 saw it, because for whenever I tried to do it on his talk page, it is achieved for some reason, and I get no confirmation if he saw it or not, or if it went unnoticed and just got swept up with a ton of other stuff. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent revert

I can in the name of charitableness accept the whole "what if the recruitment programme was different back then" shtick up to a certain point, but to take talking points from other discussions and arbitrarily apply them to articles such as this one is a bit silly, RW. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

You will probably not like to hear this again but it was agreed among a majority (except yourself) that being an Auror should not necessarily mean someone went to Hogwarts and got NEWTS, as we don't know what was in place when certain people qualified. The whole speculation about Hogwarts attendance is based on only this alone. You are the only person on this wiki with a contrarian view on this, and I have decided to recommend again a complete removal. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That I am, RW, and for the record, I'm a contrarian by necessity, not by choice. If you guys were wrong less often, my life would be a lot easier. More to the point, though: It was agreed among the majority that in the specific context that Aesop Sharp, as an Auror a century before Harry's time, should not necessarily mean someone went to Hogwarts and got NEWTS, as we don't know what was in place when certain people qualified. I can concede that when we're a full century back in time, this is almost a valid point, ("almost" being the key word, because The Art and Making of Hogwarts Legacy proved me right all along), but you can't take the argument "we don't know how it was like to become an Auror in the 1800s" and apply it to present day Aurors in Harry's time. Don't take what people say out of context. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

If you guys were wrong less often, my life would be a lot easier.

If you were arrogant less often, our lives would be a lot easier. This wiki as a collective is growing tired of telling you to stop disrespecting other people's opinions and holding yourself as the only person capable of being correct in a situation. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  14:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Instead of trying to speak on the behalf of the wiki as a collective and commenting on me rather than the argument I'm presenting, perhaps your efforts would be better spent coming up with a sound argument for why it would be okay for RW98 to arbitrarily strip Gawain Robard's article as bare as he can possibly get away with when there's no legitimate, canonical reason for why anyone should let him? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Again you only overuse the word "arbitrary" to denounce criticism and it's tiresome. And let's face it the only reason this unnecessary section still somehow stands is because you will complain if it is removed, no one else. But lamentably it shows no signs of stopping. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, seen as how I only ever use the word "arbitrary" when people are being arbitrary, I would contend that I'm using it to a completely appropriate extent. As for my "complaining" - you're right, it won't stop. When people are trying to cherry-pick when the first commandment of this wiki applies to them, I will put my foot down. Sorry, but that's just the way it is, because Rowling's Word is Law. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The era of Aesop Sharp wasn't the only reason people disagreed with having details about Auror requirements on it. Another reason was that unless a source talks about what a specific character did to be an Auror, then they don't feel the article should try and say what they did. So trying to fill up pages for Aurors with a common background or likelihoods/probabilities wasn't considered the best way to write articles. - Kates39 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

1. As far as Aesop Sharp is concerned, let's not even go there. You guys were corrected so many times about how my edit didn't say what you thought it said, and how and why it didn't actually make any of the assumptions you thought shouldn't be in the article, but you kept pretending otherwise ad nauseam. Bottom line, I don't think you want to re-open that discussion...
2. As far as Gawain Robards go: Taking J. K. Rowling seriously about what she says about the fictional universe that she herself created is not, nor can it ever be "likelihoods/probabilities"... WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Update- now Ninclow above has been thankfully banned, I removed all the speculative content in question with much pleasure. I would recommend an admin or moderator archive this "discussion" and anymore that have no further value. RedWizard98 (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)